This is essentially what has happened in coastal California over the last 60 years.
With different policy, there could be more housing built on the same land. The most scarce land there is shouldn’t be predominantly zoned for only low density single family homes.
The uber wealthy have their gated communities in the hills.
The very wealthy have their lock on places like Carmel.
The upper-middle class in Santa Cruz or Half Moon Bay try to prevent new condos (or student housing) from being built, because it "destroys the community character."
Everyone wants to pull the ladder up behind them.
Austin has been begrudgingly growing up, not without a raft of complaints from locals, because the property taxes are high enough to make selling to a developer tempting. In return, Austin has remained relatively affordable in comparison to other tech hubs.
My local government put exactly this on the ballot: a small percentage transfer tax on the sale price of the home, which would offset some of the costs we currently pay in ad valorem property taxes.
The local real estate community had a meltdown and poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into defeating it, which my neighbors obliged and did.
>My local government put exactly this on the ballot: a small percentage transfer tax on the sale price of the home,
First comment suggests taxing the gain (income tax), while second comment suggests a tax on sale price (gross receipts tax). Two very different things.
It’s been attractive to voters since most homes sell in the first tier.
You can reclaim some of the transfer tax by performing seismic upgrades which is actually something I support in a town with some houses that can be 100 years old.
The counter is of course that when you buy a house you should make sure you have enough income and/or liquid wealth so that you can pay the taxes. And if not, move to a smaller house. Of course, opponents of such taxation will then roll out all kinds of grannies living in mansions on meager pensions. Then again, is it fair that this prices out younger people from the property market?
As difficult as they are, I do think we'll need some form of wealth taxation in order to put a brake on spiraling inequality. Yes, call me a fan of Piketty if you want.
If you're planning a peasant revolt you should really consider going all-in, bloody revolution, you give the kulaks less time & space to plan for contingencies.
If the wealthy in California were willing to give up quality of life to save an amount that's not very meaningful to them, they'd have already moved to Texas. Or North Dakota. Or even Washington, which is an actual small-government state without a personal income tax.
It's annoying to list your income, but people do it because the disclosure is limited to one year, and more importantly they can control their income, particularly whatever income is earned in a given state. Only realized income is taxed. But a wealth tax involves questions of valuation - of taxing unrealized gains -- that are in many ways arbitrary and subject to abuse, and a level of disclosure and state control that makes many people feel uncomfortable due to the massive expansion of state power it requires.
I don't know why people are so stubborn about this. Next up, they will argue that because people accepted a higher sales tax, they will accept a higher wealth tax, too. After all, you let the state mandate childhood vaccines, so you should be OK with the state mandating your diet, right? Anyways, we'll see how things work in out in California. The state already has massive deficit problems, so let's see how this addresses their fiscal problems.
Freeze the property taxes and let the government take the entire value gain in the house when its sold.
I find this so funny, it completely takes the wind out of the sails of the parent comment's argument.
People really really want to have their cake and eat it too, and it's very difficult to convince them that it's not the natural way of things.
Value is always relative - even if the experience hasn't changed, the rising house price does mean that same experience is being value more highly relative to other opportunities. (In most cases this is because the experience actually has changed: if your neighborhood gets nicer, you are indeed benefitting!)
The bigger fallacy in rising property taxes is that civic services don't necessarily get better or more expensive just because property rates rise. And the bigger unfairness is that homeowners with rising values but not rising income don't always have efficient access to the equity of their homes.
A fair property tax regime would avoid presuming budget increases just due to rising value of housing stock, and might subsidize HELOCs or similar structures for folks who need to access property value to pay taxes.
In the UK, 'stamp duty' is something that buyers pay (as opposed to sellers), but sellers also have to buy, so everyone pays to move and everyone stays put to avoid paying.
(And of course no one builds, which is the biggest issue).
I'd say it's OK to defer your property taxes until you sell (or die), but it shouldn't be the default, only something you apply for if you're in a vulnerable position.
I think it's a great idea to let land taxes create the incentives to build efficiently.
The result - stamp duty is exclusively paid by middle class people actually buying homes, never by the rentier class. They already used the money up front to buy the votes for this law apparently
It's basically excuse to get rid of poor that made a mistake of buying a house in area that turned more expensive 2 decades after.
Tax anything after first house, sure, but taxing house by value is terrible idea that never actually worked in a way proponents are saying it would
You don't get rid of the 'poor'/less wealthy if you allow building higher and thus have a more efficient use of land as land values increase. All owners would share the cost of their land value tax.
The problem is not building higher in areas with very high demand. Of course they become 'rich only neighbourhoods' or whatever.
If a house is worth £1M, a flat in a 5-story building should be less than 200k in the same location. We can't have houses in city centres! We can't have houses 5 min from the city centre! We could definitely have houses 1h from the city centre in a small town. In London or NY we shouldn't, though!
I always tell my internet friends that they should think hard about second order effects. Stamo duty has very negative second order effects. Land value tax has very positive second order effects. Property taxes sit somewhere in the middle.
An owner can derive value from the house in one of three ways:
A) Occupy the whole place.
B) Receive rent from a tenant.
C) Something in between (e.g. airbnb one room).
When property prices double, it's likely that rents roughly double. This may not increase the value the owner can derive from (A) but it will sure change the value they can derive from (B).
So they might decide to switch from living in the place to renting it out. If they don't decide to switch, then it indicates the value they derive from living in the property has either gone up, or it was always way higher than the market rent.
It seems like market rent is a reasonable benchmark to use to calculate property taxes, and property value is a reasonable proxy for market rent.
Your better believe it is when it comes time to sell.
Or would owners not mind having 0% property taxes in return for the state taking all gains at sale time
Reverse mortgage
So someone else put up the capital, the government made that capital cheap, and societal demand with artificial scarcity (in most places) pushed up the asset value.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but let’s not pretend that making capital gains on a house in the US is anything like any other available investment.
Yes, mortgages are subsidized by our interest tax deduction system. That part is true. It doesn't turn home ownership into something with no risk, and it certainly doesn't turn it into this subsidized investment. It's a liability, not an investment.
I’m not saying that homeownership is a slam dunk. If you go back and reread, what I’m pushing back on is that the mere act of purchasing and holding a house counts as doing something worthy of a return.
My point is that homeownership, in the US especially, is so heavily favored as an investment vehicle that you perhaps should not act as if you inherently deserve the gains for having “done something”.
As you say: it’s a liability, not an investment (although, I would say it’s entirely possible to be both, and trillions of dollars of smart money agrees)). But it is a liability that has limited downside because of government policy. Because of this, it actually makes a pretty good investment as well. We would do well to recognize where those gains come from (artificially low mortgage rates, and often artificially high scarcity).
No it's not.
Just unbelievable gaslighting from the landed class, continuously.
Ohhh no, woe is you, bought a $500k house on 3%, literally lived inside it, but had to repair the septic :(
Just have government allow taxes to be deferred until time of sale with interest pinned to the cost of borrowing for government. That already exists where I live for people over the age of 65. The government can still get the revenue for free via borrowing and the payback is more or less guaranteed.
This doesn't totally automate it, but it takes away the need to manage the proceeds from a reverse mortgage between the time you receive a payout and the time you pay your taxes.
It often is, instead. Eg the resale value of my flat increased because the area where I live became a better place.
If the area around you is improving substantially, then yes that day-to-day value could be improved by better local shops, maybe a closer office building, nicer parks, etc. Generally stuff like that does not happen quickly though, and really big changes like magically teleporting from boring middle of nowhere to a vibrant cultural downtown don't happen at all.
Residential development already has razor thin margins. Your idea is that people will still do this multi-million (or multi-billion)-dollar projects into an environment of flat or falling sales prices?
The problem is the cost of inputs, full stop. Land and labor (and now materials) are too expensive. Land is the one component that's pretty much a bullshit price, i.e. there's no reason it needs to be high in absolute terms, because the land is all there regardless of the selling price.
My intuition agrees with the supply side argument. Also higher interest rates to reduce demand? Isn't this how we got here, to these very high house prices worldwide, by a combination of the two? Taxes seem a second order effect here at best.
I think they're usually called "homestead exemption" or something like that.
Stamp duty in the UK, horrendous tax. It's better than nothing at offsetting the unearned increase in house (land) value, but far worse than a regular tax.
If you live somewhere for 10 years, then move, then repeat for 40 years, you pay far more than if you never move. This encourages people to live in less suitable houses for longer.
As to your worry about land values increasing -- the owner is deriving benefit. The higher the land value is, the more benefit the owner gets from the land.
This sounds like a problem with the way the particular tax is written, not with the idea of taxing housing gains at the time of sale.
> The higher the land value is, the more benefit the owner gets from the land.
What benefit does a homeowner derive from increased land value before selling?
It's absolute insanity
Large sales tax on home purchases is probably a generally bad idea. Looks like Bay Area pricing would incur a 10-12% tax under the UK scheme which seems pretty crazy.
Likewise if I buy somewhere cheap in a backwater town, and the town becomes more desirable because there are better employment opportunities, better shops, better amenities, all of which serve to mean people will pay more for the land, then I benefit from that immediately.
Most people’s home values go up because of 1) increasing housing demand and 2) the collective delusion that home prices can continue to far outpace wage growth indefinitely. Neither of these things necessarily result in an increase in amenities or improved quality of life.
My own home value has gone up something like 70% in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the amenities near me are essentially unchanged. Same schools. Same number and quality of restaurants and grocery stores. My net worth has jumped a fair bit but my immediate benefit seems pretty much flat.
This is how it works for sales in Sweden, via the so called "reavinstskatt", or profit realisation tax. Funnily enough, it is mostly applied to individuals in practice. To avoid the taxation, companies package properties in subsidiaries, which can then be sold and traded like any other stock. The tax is then postponed until the de jure sale of the property, which never occurs. Individuals are not eligible because the loophole is closed if the legal owner also occupies the property they own.
Forcing renters and buyers to pay for the local services instead of property owners seems extremely unfair.
> Any increase in housing value (and thus property taxes) is mostly an increase in the cost of living.
So? If the property values go up then cost of living is going up for renters too. Why should property owners be shielded from this by imposing local service costs on renters who generally have even lower incomes than owners.